Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:at this point i think the dems should cut their losses and pass the cr and enable the legislative branch of govt function again, however terribly it may be. it's better than zero.
Absolutely not. Once the populous actually sees how much their ACA premiums go up on Nov 1 they’ll understand what the Dems are fighting for and how corrupt the GOP is
So the only way ACA can survive is through massive subsidies? Sounds like it needs to be reformed or killed.
Can we say the same thing for Space X? It can only survive with government subsidies?
What subsidies is Space X specifically receiving? Payment for services rendered are not subsidies.
Now if you were talking about ULA... That was basically the Government paying for nothing.
There’s an implicit subsidy… the federal government is the anchor tenant that has allowed SpaceX to survive.
LOL, payment for services rendered is not a subsidy. Keep trying.
Do you own stock in one of Musk’s companies? You sound very protective of them.
Nah, just find liberal derangement over Space X and Musk to be amusing.
m
Most Americans don’t care whether SpaceX and Tesla exist. Let the market decide. If they fail, they fail. 🤷♀️
NASA invested in commercializing space via the SpaceX company, which provided it with capital and authorization for various contracts that wouldn’t have been possible otherwise.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2025/09/nasa-spacex-elon-musk-ambitions/683559/
I'd like to see a referendum on spending tax money on going to Mars. I can't imagine most U.S. citizens are interested in paying more for healthcare for the sake of getting to Mars. Like sure, I'll pay higher premiums so we can send a few spaceships to Mars in a few decades. So worth it to the average citizen wanting to retire by 65.
This is unbelievably obtuse. Federal spending on healthcare is about $2,000B per year. Federal spending on human space flight is roughly $10B per year. Are you seriously suggesting asking to compare things that are imbalanced by a factor of 200? Which would you rather have, a Ferrari or a Hot Wheels?
I don’t think you understand the improbability of a manned trip to Mars in the current NASA budget. $10B a year is woefully small compared to what the actual costs will be. Estimates are an actual manned trip to Mars would be about $1T. Also given differences in orbits, a manned mission would be able to stay for about 3 days before needing to depart.
A better comparison would be would you rather have a Ferrari for three days and possibly never get home in it because it crashes on a highway and bursts into flames or a new BMW that works and continues to benefit you as the owner after the year?
Your comparison isn’t accurate between a Ferrari and Hot Wheels.