Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
NASA

+ - TEA Party Publishes Official Space Platform-> 31

Submitted by
BJ_Covert_Action
BJ_Covert_Action writes "Spaceref has taken note that the TEA Party has officially published a platform for its political stance on the space industry. It appears that the TEA Party takes itself seriously enough as a viable U.S. political party that it is not content to simply fulfill a niche third party role in the political spectrum. Rather, it has posted its official party platform, and it is encouraging all Americans from all political backgrounds to read the platform. Amongst other issues, the TEA Party is interested in reducing government involvement in the developing space industry, creating tax exemptions for space-related companies, and killing off, in entirety, the controversial NASA heavy lift rocket program (SLS, Constellation, etc.)."
Link to Original Source
This discussion was created for logged-in users only, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TEA Party Publishes Official Space Platform

Comments Filter:
  • ... supports fiscal engineering through tax cuts.
    • by MightyYar (622222)

      I'm not a big tea party fan, but come ON! You are being very hard on them.

      ANY government activity amounts to "fiscal engineering". If government builds a road, so much for the private road business. Public schools really destroy the private school market. The tea party isn't anti-fiscal-engineering, as you put it - they just want to minimize the government role. Certainly the model of not collecting taxes is a much smaller role than collecting taxes and paying them back out? I think they are being entirely

      • The tea party isn't anti-fiscal-engineering, as you put it - they just want to minimize the government role

        Then why aren't they advocating for the Fed to just get out of the space business all together? It isn't like roads where the day-to-day operation of the country depends on it.

        I have to side with the OP - for all their rhetoric of getting the government out of the business of business, this position is hypocritical.

        • by MightyYar (622222)

          Then why aren't they advocating for the Fed to just get out of the space business all together?

          Because there's no private sector business case for getting off this rock.

          • Because there's no private sector business case for getting off this rock.

            There's a muslim from Iran who would disagree with you, her name is Anousheh Ansari.

            • by MightyYar (622222)

              I strongly disagree with you if you think that a private individual sponsoring a small prize is a model that will let us colonize the heavens. I don't think it is a possible goal without government help - even tax incentives seem a bit weak. I think you need to have a very long-term goal of leaving the solar system, and then many shorter-term tasks that all lead up to that goal. There doesn't even need to be a timeline for the long-term goal.

              • I strongly disagree with you if you think that a private individual sponsoring a small prize is a model that will let us colonize the heavens.

                I guess you haven't been paying attention to what happened AFTER the Ansari X-Prize competition was finished.

                As for stuff like leaving the solar system, you are just arguing in circles - none of that is necessary. And it sure ain't going to happen any time soon even with tons of tax payer funding.

                • by MightyYar (622222)

                  I guess you haven't been paying attention to what happened AFTER the Ansari X-Prize competition was finished.

                  Let me know if I missed something. My understanding is that a very rich guy is paying a longtime government contractor who won the X-Prize to make a small number of suborbital reusable rockets for millionaires to play astronaut. Meanwhile, NASA is paying another very rich guy to make a new rocket.

                  Now, while I think that Burt Rutan is a stud and I am glad to see private industry getting into the space tourism business, making early 60s-era suborbital flights using mature rocket engine technology is hardly pu

                  • How is not leaving the solar system necessary? What happens when the sun burns out?

                    That's exactly the kind of pie and sky shit the tea party constantly rails against. That you would even cite it as important in the next MILLION years shows just how out of touch you are with the debate on the ground.

                    • by MightyYar (622222)

                      That you would even cite it as important in the next MILLION years shows just how out of touch you are with the debate on the ground.

                      I don't really care how "out of touch" I am - I also have no idea who is judging American Idol this season.

                      The fact is that humans have only been on this 4-billion-old rock for about 150k years. Our history is short, but our prosperity and technological advancement have taken steps backward in the past, and I see no reason for this pattern to change going forward. I'm not certain that humans will always have the capacity to travel to space, even if we stick around for another couple hundred million years on

                    • I don't really care how "out of touch" I am

                      That became pretty obvious when you tried to argue that fiscal engineering wasn't fiscal engineering when it supports your own pet project.

                    • by MightyYar (622222)

                      That became pretty obvious when you tried to argue that fiscal engineering wasn't fiscal engineering when it supports your own pet project.

                      When did I do that? I think you invented a conversation I didn't have. I said:

                      ANY government activity amounts to "fiscal engineering".

                    • When did I do that? I think you invented a conversation I didn't have. I said:

                      when you said

                      they just want to minimize the government role ... Because there's no private sector business case for getting off this rock.

                      Which is a statement that presumes that there will never be a "private sector business case" without government involvement.

                      Fundamentally this argument comes down to your belief that without government involvement in your pet project that private business will never get involved. That's an argument that applies to all pet projects and is thus in direct contradiction to the idea that government's role should be minimised. Rant all you want about how your pet project is important and all you'll

                    • by MightyYar (622222)

                      Fundamentally this argument comes down to your belief that without government involvement in your pet project that private business will never get involved.

                      Yup.

                      That's an argument that applies to all pet projects and is thus in direct contradiction to the idea that government's role should be minimised.

                      I'm not a Tea Party fan - I just agree that government is less efficient than the free market. I'm for having public schools, public roads, a military, etc, even if it isn't the most efficient way to accomplish things.

                      Rant all you want about how your pet project is important and all you'll do is prove my point by example.

                      Not sure what your point was... I'm pro space program. I'm pro big physics. I'm pro public-funded education - my kids are going to public school. I'm even pro safety net programs. I'm pro lots of things that are under the government's purview, and I doubt many Tea Party folks would like al

                    • Not sure what your point was... I'm ... I'm ... I'm ... I'm

                      It's not about what you are, its about how your characterisation of the tea party's goals becomes internally contradictory just as soon as anyone besides yourself gets a say.

                    • by MightyYar (622222)

                      its about how your characterisation of the tea party's goals becomes internally contradictory just as soon as anyone besides yourself gets a say.

                      How so? They say "limited government", not "no government". They aren't anarchists. Hell, they aren't even fully libertarian. If they want a space program and they want to limit the size of the government involvement, then tax breaks are certainly a way to go. Not sure it's the best way, but that rather depends on how one decides to define "best".

  • Lets see I "guvmint" does it then it is BAD BAD BAD, but if VISA/ATT/BP/ "Great Big International" does it then that is just fine? Why do I have a problem with that notion?
    • by MightyYar (622222)

      I don't thing "guvmint" is bad, but I do see that they tend to be inefficient. Sometimes that inefficiency is worth it, but often times it isn't.

      • by pearl298 (1585049)
        In my experience the "inefficiency" is mostly due to the size of the organization than whether it is government or private. Trouble is government organizations tend to be huge.
        • by MightyYar (622222)

          Trouble is government organizations tend to be huge.

          Large and hard to remove. A large company can be undone by more agile competition.

  • TEA Party In Space (TPIS) seems to consist of three people with a web site and a narrow agenda. They have no apparent affiliation with the Tea Party movement, except in their own minds. They also seem to think that TEA is an acronym, for some reason.

    • TEA Party In Space (TPIS) seems to consist of three people with a web site and a narrow agenda. They have no apparent affiliation with the Tea Party movement, except in their own minds.

      I think that is a problem with the Tea Party in general - it is almost like Anonymous, anyone who claims to be part of the Tea Party is. There seem be tens, if not hundreds, of tea party groups and it is pretty hard to get an accurate picture of just how many each group really represents.

    • Are you sure about that? From their press release, they seem to by affiliated with The Tea Party Patriots [teapartypatriots.org] which claims to be tthe official home of the Tea Party Movement. Soooo, if these patriots aren't the official Tea Party, what is?
      • if these patriots aren't the official Tea Party, what is?

        Just because TPIS has a link to teapartypatriots.org, I would not infer that they are "affiliated" in any way. The teapartypatriots.org site does have links to related groups and blogs, but TPIS isn't one of them. I doubt that the folks at Tea Party Patriots even know that TPIS exists.

        The sole reason for the existence of TPIS seems to be the fact that the Tea Party doesn't have any "Official Space Platform". It still doesn't, as far as I can tell. I agree that this is pretty typical Tea Party disorganiz

  • ""Spaceref has taken note that the TEA Party has officially published a platform for its political stance on the space industry. It appears that the TEA Party takes itself seriously enough as a viable U.S. political party that it is not content to simply fulfill a niche third party role in the political spectrum."

    Uh... hate to break it to you guy, but pretty much ALL political parties in America with more than 1 or 2 members publishes its official party platform, up to and including the Communist Party.

    Sheesh.

    • But not all of the parties publish an official platform with regards to the space industry. In other words, not all political parties care enough about space access to make it a focus of their party. Considering that this is a News for Nerds website, and nerds tend to be interested in developments in the space industry, I figured a third party publishing a stance on the space industry was a Slashdot worthy subject, you condescending jackass.

      Or were you just so blinded by your own sense of superiority tha
      • "But not all of the parties publish an official platform with regards to the space industry."

        He didn't mention the "space industry" there. Repeat:

        "It appears that the TEA Party takes itself seriously enough as a viable U.S. political party that it is not content to simply fulfill a niche third party role in the political spectrum."

        That is clearly a statement about political parties, not a comment about the "space industry". If he meant something else, he should have written something else.

        • Actually, I did. Read it again, Stupid. Here, better yet, I will quote it from you right from the original summary:

          Spaceref has taken note that the TEA Party has officially published a platform for its political stance on the space industry.

          See the bold? See how it matches exactly what was originally posted in the summary? See how it mentions the space industry? Is this making sense to you yet or are you still too damn proud to admit that you were wrong?

          "It appears that the TEA Party takes itself seriously enough as a viable U.S. political party that it is not content to simply fulfill a niche third party role in the political spectrum."

          That is clearly a statement about political parties, not a comment about the "space industry". If he meant something else, he should have written something else.

          I'm not exactly sure what you are getting at by this, but if you are trying to say that my second sentence in the summary did not mention the space industry, and, therefore, you

          • "Actually, I did. Read it again, Stupid. ..."

            I have read it several times, Asshole, and you, who obviously don't understand English very well, calling someone who does "stupid" is pretty funny.

            Allow me to put it in better context:

            "It appears that the TEA Party takes itself seriously enough as a viable U.S. political party that it is not content to simply fulfill a niche third party role in the political spectrum. Rather, it has posted its official party platform, and it is encouraging all Americans from all political backgrounds to read the platform. Amongst other issues..." [emphasis mine]

            If you don't understand how this is clearly a statement about political parties and their publishing of a platform, and how you made the space thing only incidental to this comment ("amongst other issues"), then I'm not the one with the problem.

            Have a nice day. :o)

      • By he, of course, I meant you.

        The one sentence does not relate to the other. You could have made them do so, if that's what you meant. But you did not.

Riches: A gift from Heaven signifying, "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." -- John D. Rockefeller, (slander by Ambrose Bierce)

Working...