http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/01/27/obama-budget-drop-nasa-constellation-program/

When President Obama releases his budget on Monday, there may be a big hole where funding for NASA's Constellation program used to be. Constellation is the umbrella program that includes the Ares rocket -- the replacement for the aging space shuttles.

According to a report in the Orlando Sentinel, the forthcoming budget -- which the president will announce in detail during Wednesday night's State of the Union address -- will include no funding for lunar landers, no moon bases, and no Constellation program at all. Instead, NASA will outsource space flight to other governments (such as the Russians) and private companies.

NASA's Constellation program aims to create a new generation of spacecraft for human spaceflight, consisting primarily of the Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles, the Orion crew capsule and the Altair Lunar Lander. These spacecraft will be capable of performing a variety of missions, from International Space Station resupply to lunar landings.

SLIDESHOW: The Ares Rocket

But according to the Sentinel, White House insiders and agency officials say NASA will eventually look at developing a new "heavy-lift" rocket that one day will take humans and robots to explore beyond low Earth orbit years in the future -- and possibly even decades or more.

In the meantime, the White House will direct NASA to concentrate on Earth-science projects -- principally, researching and monitoring climate change -- and on a new technology research and development program that will one day make human exploration of asteroids and the solar system possible.

There will also be funding for private companies to develop capsules and rockets that can be used as space taxis, reports the Sentinel. These companies may take astronauts on fixed-price contracts to and from the International Space Station -- a major change in the way the agency has done business for the past 50 years.

NASA's budget, just over $18.7 billion this year, is still expected to rise again in 2011, reports Space.com, though by much less than the $1 billion increase NASA and its contractors have been privately anticipating since mid-December. A White House-appointed panel, led by former Lockheed Martin chief Norm Augustine, urged these changes on the administration in December.

The panel also said a worthwhile manned space exploration program would require Obama to budget about $55 billion for human spaceflight over the next five years, some $11 billion more than he included in the 2011-2015 forecast he sent Congress last spring.

A senior administration official told Fox News that rather than space programs, the president plans to use the address to renew his focus on jobs, calling for swift action on lagging bills providing tax cuts for job creation, new equipment purchases and the elimination of capital gains for small businesses.

Bravo.

We have bigger problems to fund than how to land a man on Mars.  Let's put the space nerds to more productive work.  Maybe to develop a version of Windows that does not crash.  :P

Directing NASA to work monitoring climate change is OK, but realistically the budget for that had better be MINISCULE as compared to all the Mars/lunar lander crap.  We do not need thousands of NASA guys monitoring the weather.  Maybe a couple a hundred.

I wish our space program panned out the way we hoped when I was a kid.  The lunar landings gave us a great sense of achievement and possibility in the '70s.  The Space Shuttle program's successful debut in 1981 affirmed that sense.  It did seem likely back then that we would colonize the moon and make voyages to Mars and Venus by the time of the new millennium.  That was before the Challenger disaster of 1986 and the consequences of a crippling national debt became apparent in early '90s.  The ruling class was not interested in investing in achievements for all mankind, it was interested in enriching itself at the expense of the rest of mankind, and so it did.  Their crowning victory was the Wall Street bailouts and the ascent of Red China as our overlord.  That's why you don't have funding for a wonderful space program today.  Might I suggest you write to Goldman Sachs and say "Thanks a lot!"
::)

I wish the consolation prize was to be able to say we are putting the space program on hold so we can fix the problems devastating our economy, but I know that's not on the agenda of Obama's paymasters either.  Don't just listen to what you do hear in tonight's state of the union, listen to what you don't hear...that silence will deafen you!

We were a rich country when we started sending men into outer space in the 1960s.  We are not a rich country anymore.  We are a poor country with a tiny class of super-rich kleptocrats like all those Third World backwaters we used to make fun of!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/icon_biggrin.gif

On the one hand, space exploration should be a lower priority than most.

On the other...  NASA is probably the most profitable part of our government.

On average, for every dollar we spend on NASA, we get back 8 in advances.

We have bigger problems to fund than how to land a man on Mars.  Let's put the space nerds to more productive work.  Maybe to develop a version of Windows that does not crash.  :P


Well, as long as you're analogizing to the tech industry, why not just outsource it all to India?

Because today India announced plans, by 2016, to join China, Russia, (and maybe Japan?) in having manned spaceflight capabilities.  The fact that it did so on the very same day that the technological backwater known as the United States shut down its manned spaceflight programme is telling.

"We choose not to do these things, because they are hard."
  - Obama, while he did an otherwise good job on his speech tonight, is no JFK.

Well, as long as you're analogizing to the tech industry, why not just outsource it all to India?

Because today India announced plans, by 2016, to join China, Russia, (and maybe Japan?) in having manned spaceflight capabilities.  The fact that it did so on the very same day that the technological backwater known as the United States shut down its manned spaceflight programme is telling.

"We choose not to do these things, because they are hard."
  - Obama, while he did an otherwise good job on his speech tonight, is no JFK.


We can't do these things because we are broke!

We can't do these things because we are broke!


I'm actually waiting to see how this plays out.  Ares was always controversial, expensive, and late.  The best technical argument against it is that it was a political programme in the first place -- it was basically a way to let Thiokol continue keep the contract for the Shuttle's SRBs by using them as the basis for a manned programme, and solid rockets suck for manned flight.  You can't turn them off, and the ride's a lot rougher than liquid-fueled engines.  The Shuttle works because it's insanely heavy, and the oscillations from the SRBs are damped by the struts that connect them to the rest of the stack.  In order to make Ares I not shake the astronauts to death (literally!), Ares I had to sacrifice a lot of payload capacity for dampening.

If we're very lucky, we may get to see a NASA that uses its budget on doing science via robotics, and if it wants to do a manned launch, within the next 10-20 years, it'll be able to subcontract that out to some of the young upstarts like Bigelow Aerospace, SpaceX, Scaled Composites, or Armadillo Aerospace.

If it works out that way, it won't matter whether NASA builds a crewed spacecraft.  Anyone with a few million bucks to spare (and in 50 years, assuming the global economy doesn't collapse, anyone with a few months' wages to spare) will be able to book passage to the Orbital or Lunar Hilton for a weekend of zero-gee or 1/6 gee fun.  Anyone with a few billion to spare will be able to fund a research programme just for the sheer hell of it.  (Indeed, that's pretty much the story of SpaceX.  The guy who sold some tech to AltaVista used the money to found PayPal, and used the money from PayPal to build spaceships and electric sports cars.  If NASA won't take him to space, Elon Musk will damn well take himself to space.  What's money for, unless you can use it to build the things that nobody else has for sale? :)

I'll probably never see orbit, but I hope to live long enough that - by the time I go - I'll have formed a reasonable opinion about whether humanity will ever leave its nest.

I'm actually waiting to see how this plays out.  Ares was always controversial, expensive, and late.  The best technical argument against it is that it was a political programme in the first place -- it was basically a way to let Thiokol continue keep the contract for the Shuttle's SRBs by using them as the basis for a manned programme, and solid rockets suck for manned flight.  You can't turn them off, and the ride's a lot rougher than liquid-fueled engines.  The Shuttle works because it's insanely heavy, and the oscillations from the SRBs are damped by the struts that connect them to the rest of the stack.  In order to make Ares I not shake the astronauts to death (literally!), Ares I had to sacrifice a lot of payload capacity for dampening.

If we're very lucky, we may get to see a NASA that uses its budget on doing science via robotics, and if it wants to do a manned launch, within the next 10-20 years, it'll be able to subcontract that out to some of the young upstarts like Bigelow Aerospace, SpaceX, Scaled Composites, or Armadillo Aerospace.

If it works out that way, it won't matter whether NASA builds a crewed spacecraft.  Anyone with a few million bucks to spare (and in 50 years, assuming the global economy doesn't collapse, anyone with a few months' wages to spare) will be able to book passage to the Orbital or Lunar Hilton for a weekend of zero-gee or 1/6 gee fun.  Anyone with a few billion to spare will be able to fund a research programme just for the sheer hell of it.  (Indeed, that's pretty much the story of SpaceX.  The guy who sold some tech to AltaVista used the money to found PayPal, and used the money from PayPal to build spaceships and electric sports cars.  If NASA won't take him to space, Elon Musk will damn well take himself to space.  What's money for, unless you can use it to build the things that nobody else has for sale? :)

I'll probably never see orbit, but I hope to live long enough that - by the time I go - I'll have formed a reasonable opinion about whether humanity will ever leave its nest.


Maybe humans need to learn to treat their nest -- and one another -- with more respect before we will be able to figure out how to leave it.

Those aren't giant cuts I really can't get too pissed off about it.  The focus should be on rocket technology more than on manned exploration.  Until we can get into orbit on a more routine basis, manned planet exploration seems a little pointless.

Maybe humans need to learn to treat their nest -- and one another -- with more respect before we will be able to figure out how to leave it.



My thoughts exactly
Karma

Maybe humans need to learn to treat their nest -- and one another -- with more respect before we will be able to figure out how to leave it.


Alas, the corollary to "Earth First!" is "...w'll strip-mine the other planets later!"  The Moon may be a Harsh Mistress, but those imbeciles on Earth are using live ammunition.  Why not get away from them?

The dinosaurs are extinct because they never had a space program.  I say we've kept all our eggs in one clutch for too long as it is.

The dinosaurs are extinct because they never had a space program.  I say we've kept all our eggs in one clutch for too long as it is.


I'm not so sure I like the idea of humans lasting longer than dinosaurs....

Alas, the corollary to "Earth First!" is "...w'll strip-mine the other planets later!"  The Moon may be a Harsh Mistress, but those imbeciles on Earth are using live ammunition.  Why not get away from them?

The dinosaurs are extinct because they never had a space program.  I say we've kept all our eggs in one clutch for too long as it is.


"Dinosaurs in Space"

Wow, that's a heavy trip, dude!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/06/jinnwink.gif

"Dinosaurs in Space"

Wow, that's a heavy trip, dude!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/06/jinnwink.gif


I don't know.  What about the Kligons - they look like giant reptiles to me.  Could it be that they didn't go extinct but simply "migrated"?  Food for thought science fiction.

I don't know.  What about the Kligons - they look like giant reptiles to me.  Could it be that they didn't go extinct but simply "migrated"?  Food for thought science fiction.


According to one ST:TNG episode, all the races in the Trek universe were "seeded" with genetic material from a much older race that lived and died long before anyone else.  They wanted the different planets to develop and seek each other out.  It would explain why all the races are basically "humanoid" in appearance.

According to one ST:TNG episode, all the races in the Trek universe were "seeded" with genetic material from a much older race that lived and died long before anyone else.  They wanted the different planets to develop and seek each other out.  It would explain why all the races are basically "humanoid" in appearance.


Yeah, but that's no fun

According to one ST:TNG episode, all the races in the Trek universe were "seeded" with genetic material from a much older race that lived and died long before anyone else.  They wanted the different planets to develop and seek each other out.  It would explain why all the races are basically "humanoid" in appearance.


That was The Chase, which actually covered it pretty nicely.

But there was the truly dippy ST:VOY (even by Voyager's shockingly low standards) episode: Distant Origins, in which we encountered our long-lost Dinosaur relatives.  They basically said "So long, and thanks for all the fish", and bailed.

Back on topic, it's looking like my pipe-dream of a few days ago wasn't quite as crazy as I first thought.  US-based private spaceflight will get a chunk of that money.  (O RLY?  Ya Rly, even at venture-capital levels.)

From the first of those two articles:


Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin, the second man on the moon, strongly endorsed the new program, saying "the truth is, that we have already been to the Moon - some 40 years ago. A near-term focus on lowering the cost of access to space and on developing key, cutting-edge technologies to take us further, faster, is just what our nation needs to maintain its position as the leader in space exploration for the rest of this century."


No disrespect to former NASA administrator Mike Griffin (whose position on manned spaceflight is one with which I also sympathize), but even if he hates it, the fact that Buzz Aldrin likes it makes it good enough for me.  Mike's gravy train just got cut short, and he's understandably miffed.  Buzz has nothing political to gain or lose - his only goal is to ensure that evenif he can't go back into orbit, he wants to at least know that his kids and/or his grandkids will be able to go.

No, I do not want the private sector getting involved space flight, not the way they'll want the deal.  Like everything else, those "venture capitalists" do, they'll want to socialize the risk and privatize the profit.

If you want to start "Bud's Space Taxi," that's cool with me.  You just make sure your investors agree to build all the launching facilities, pay all the engineers, and pay for any kind of environmental mess you might make.  Oh, and if you blow your sh*t up and kill a bunch of people ala Challanger, or you send Major Tom out there and you can't get him back home, don't call it Uncle Sam's problem.  Hope you bought some good spaceman insurance 'cos that's gonna cost big, big bucks if something goes wrong.  Don't forget, it was engineers who came up with Murphy's Law: "If anything can go wrong, it will."

8)

No, I do not want the private sector getting involved space flight, not the way they'll want the deal.  Like everything else, those "venture capitalists" do, they'll want to socialize the risk and privatize the profit.

If you want to start "Bud's Space Taxi," that's cool with me.  You just make sure your investors agree to build all the launching facilities, pay all the engineers, and pay for any kind of environmental mess you might make.  Oh, and if you blow your sh*t up and kill a bunch of people ala Challanger, or you send Major Tom out there and you can't get him back home, don't call it Uncle Sam's problem.  Hope you bought some good spaceman insurance 'cos that's gonna cost big, big bucks if something goes wrong.  Don't forget, it was engineers who came up with Murphy's Law: "If anything can go wrong, it will."

8)


Oh, come on Max, do you really think our free market freak adventure capitalists are going to hit up uncle Sam for $$$?  You are just soooo jaded. ;)

Oh, come on Max, do you really think our free market freak adventure capitalists are going to hit up uncle Sam for $$$?  You are just soooo jaded. ;)


How am I supposed to attract investors to "Bud's Space Taxi" if they think they might lose money?  Where's the fun in that?  Might as well invest in investing, can't lose there!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/icon_biggrin.gif

How am I supposed to attract investors to "Bud's Space Taxi" if they think they might lose money?  Where's the fun in that?  Might as well invest in investing, can't lose there!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/icon_biggrin.gif


Good point.  Lets the two of us open an investment bank.  Our slogan could be "We spend your money, guaranteed we'll make a profit".

How am I supposed to attract investors to "Bud's Space Taxi" if they think they might lose money?  Where's the fun in that?


Funny, but Richard Branson put his own money into VG.  Most of the other companies I mentioned are funded either by venture capital, or are publicly-traded, and have already taken in a bunch of capital from private investors.  And yeah, a lot of those private investors will probably lose money.

In other news, Tesla Motors recently got a $465M loan guarantee with a boatload of strings attached.  Some of that taxpayer money will put the otherwise-struggling company into a position in which it can actually conduct a public offering, which means private investors with an appetite for risk will be able to throw some money into the pot. 

So the government's guarantee of a $465M loan becomes a guarantee of $465M against a cash balance of $100-150M, which reduces risk to the taxpayer, and gives Tesla around $600M to work with.  Maybe that's enough capital to build a plant and produce sedans in enough quantity that economies of scale kick in, and the first mass-produced electric car can become available to consumers.  Maybe not.  But the odds for Tesla (and the taxpayer) will be better after the IPO than they are before the IPO.  (The odds for Tesla's new IPO shareholders are anyone's guess at this point; the only thing that's sure is that their odds are worse than the government's odds of not having to pay on that loan guarantee - but in exchange for that risk, they get a cut of the winnings if it works out well.)

Might as well invest in investing, can't lose there! http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/icon_biggrin.gif

And yes, the investment banks underwriting that IPO will get a cut whether Tesla makes it or not.  But without them, there'd be no IPO, and the taxpayers would be the only ones on the hook.  (And there'd be no way for Joe Sixpack to profit if it works out in Telsa's favor.)

Funny, but Richard Branson put his own money into VG.  Most of the other companies I mentioned are funded either by venture capital, or are publicly-traded, and have already taken in a bunch of capital from private investors.  And yeah, a lot of those private investors will probably lose money.

In other news, Tesla Motors recently got a $465M loan guarantee with a boatload of strings attached.  Some of that taxpayer money will put the otherwise-struggling company into a position in which it can actually conduct a public offering, which means private investors with an appetite for risk will be able to throw some money into the pot. 

So the government's guarantee of a $465M loan becomes a guarantee of $465M against a cash balance of $100-150M, which reduces risk to the taxpayer, and gives Tesla around $600M to work with.  Maybe that's enough capital to build a plant and produce sedans in enough quantity that economies of scale kick in, and the first mass-produced electric car can become available to consumers.  Maybe not.  But the odds for Tesla (and the taxpayer) will be better after the IPO than they are before the IPO.  (The odds for Tesla's new IPO shareholders are anyone's guess at this point; the only thing that's sure is that their odds are worse than the government's odds of not having to pay on that loan guarantee - but in exchange for that risk, they get a cut of the winnings if it works out well.)

And yes, the investment banks underwriting that IPO will get a cut whether Tesla makes it or not.  But without them, there'd be no IPO, and the taxpayers would be the only ones on the hook.  (And there'd be no way for Joe Sixpack to profit if it works out in Telsa's favor.)


In other words...it's okay for private enterprise to rely on the government.
???

"We choose not to do these things, because they are hard."
 - Obama, while he did an otherwise good job on his speech tonight, is no JFK.

FB, what I wouldn't give to say that right to Obama's face!

The planet is overpopulated enough, we need the scientific advances NASA could give us in space, and clearly our joke of a president's agenda is now to break every single promise he made during the campaign! And naturally, that will mean just what he vowed to prevent less than 2 years ago: ANOTHER DROP IN JOBS. Perhaps he'd like to explain this 180 from YES WE CAN!?!?!?

"Obama, you're NO Jack Kennedy!"

Your Pal,
Doc
:P

FB, what I wouldn't give to say that right to Obama's face!

The planet is overpopulated enough, we need the scientific advances NASA could give us in space, and clearly our joke of a president's agenda is now to break every single promise he made during the campaign! And naturally, that will mean just what he vowed to prevent less than 2 years ago: ANOTHER DROP IN JOBS.

"Obama, you're NO Jack Kennedy!"

Your Pal,
Doc
:P


The overpopulation of this planet is the fault of the human species.  Why do we feel we need to wreck another planet?  Besides what ever happened to good old population control.  Also I think most of us are too worried about keeping food on the table and a roof over our head that the space program isn't top priority.

The overpopulation of this planet is the fault of the human species.  Why do we feel we need to wreck another planet?  Besides what ever happened to good old population control.  Also I think most of us are too worried about keeping food on the table and a roof over our head that the space program isn't top priority.


''Good old population control' is one of the conerstones of tyrannical governments. Once you get the government to be able to tell you how many kids you can have, essentially regulating your sex life, there'll soon be little areas the government won't also try to intrude. I'm for big government programs like the Great Society, New Deal, etc but...Population control borders too close to authoritarianism.

''Good old population control' is one of the conerstones of tyrannical governments.

Ryan's right. I shudder to think how many babies have been slaughtered by the Communist Chinese government due to their "One-child" policy. There's even documentation of them harassing a pregnant woman living in the United States(her husband was here on a work visa) demanding she abort her second child. (JFTR, she didn't. Her baby girl was born in America.)
The moon doesn't have an atmosphere or an environment to damage, so let's build some homes up there for the homeless(they'll have some awesome views out their window! :D ). That should help restore the eco-balance on Earth, and the sooner we do that, the better.

Your Pal,
Doc
8)

''Good old population control' is one of the conerstones of tyrannical governments. Once you get the government to be able to tell you how many kids you can have, essentially regulating your sex life, there'll soon be little areas the government won't also try to intrude. I'm for big government programs like the Great Society, New Deal, etc but...Population control borders too close to authoritarianism.


I think she was referring to voluntary population control...  like using birth control more often.

The premise behind voluntary population control is a good one, because it means having to feed less mouths on welfare.

''Good old population control' is one of the conerstones of tyrannical governments. Once you get the government to be able to tell you how many kids you can have, essentially regulating your sex life, there'll soon be little areas the government won't also try to intrude. I'm for big government programs like the Great Society, New Deal, etc but...Population control borders too close to authoritarianism.


Who was born today?
Well, nobody!
No, I mean in history, before they changed the water!

--Firesign Theater (from radio program from the future sketch)
8)

Ryan's right. I shudder to think how many babies have been slaughtered by the Communist Chinese government due to their "One-child" policy. There's even documentation of them harassing a pregnant woman living in the United States(her husband was here on a work visa) demanding she abort her second child. (JFTR, she didn't. Her baby girl was born in America.)
The moon doesn't have an atmosphere or an environment to damage, so let's build some homes up there for the homeless(they'll have some awesome views out their window! :D ). That should help restore the eco-balance on Earth, and the sooner we do that, the better.

Your Pal,
Doc
8)


Hey Doc, you willing to relocate?  Notions of "space colonies" are no more than science fiction, and will be for the foreseeable future.  This spaceship earth is our home, and we had better clean it up.  After all, we are the only species that  fouls its nest.

''Good old population control' is one of the conerstones of tyrannical governments. Once you get the government to be able to tell you how many kids you can have, essentially regulating your sex life, there'll soon be little areas the government won't also try to intrude. I'm for big government programs like the Great Society, New Deal, etc but...Population control borders too close to authoritarianism.


How about those Pro-Lifers? Are you sure that's not a form of population control?  Interesting how you take the traditional Conservative fearful side of it.

I think she was referring to voluntary population control...  like using birth control more often.

The premise behind voluntary population control is a good one, because it means having to feed less mouths on welfare.


Yes, I was and as usual people like Doc misunderstand me.

Hey Doc, you willing to relocate?  Notions of "space colonies" are no more than science fiction, and will be for the foreseeable future.  This spaceship earth is our home, and we had better clean it up.  After all, we are the only species that fouls its nest.

Maybe not me personally, I'd have to think long and hard about that, but there are probably thousands who would do so in a heartbeat.
Frankly, I think some people should be forced to relocate to space colonies or the moon, and those would be those most guilty of "fouling the nest"! Exile them from Earth(with the volunteers) until they learn to be environmentally responsible, sort of a galactic "community service".
We have one space station up and running, and the more money we channel towards research into building more, the sooner it will cease to be science fiction. BTW, I'm all for cleaning up Spaceship Earth as well.

Your Pal,
Doc
8)

The premise behind voluntary population control is a good one, because it means having to feed less mouths on welfare.



That still leaves us with the Paris Hiltons, the Menendez Brothers and their ilk

I think she was referring to voluntary population control...  like using birth control more often.

The premise behind voluntary population control is a good one, because it means having to feed less mouths on welfare.


That's frikkin' mean spirited, Bub!
>:(

Maybe not me personally, I'd have to think long and hard about that, but there are probably thousands who would do so in a heartbeat.
Frankly, I think some people should be forced to relocate to space colonies or the moon, and those would be those most guilty of "fouling the nest"! Exile them from Earth(with the volunteers) until they learn to be environmentally responsible, sort of a galactic "community service".
We have one space station up and running, and the more money we channel towards research into building more, the sooner it will cease to be science fiction. BTW, I'm all for cleaning up Spaceship Earth as well.

Your Pal,
Doc
8)


Holy s..t, I agree with you.  My candidates would be the CEO of Exxon Mobil, Dow Chemical, Entergy (which is polluting Vermont with tritium), and many others, too numerous to mention, and, congress willing, we could tax those bastards to make it possible with no impact on the rest of us.

That's frikkin' mean spirited, Bub!
>:(


It's true though.  If you can't afford kids, don't have them.  This is why I'm both pro-choice and pro-voluntary sterilization.  We should encourage people to breed less, because our immigration rate more than makes up for "native" births.

The only people who should be having kids in this country are the ones who can afford them without government assistance.  For the ones who still have kids under those circumstances, we obviously have to maintain social programs to help them, but breeding is not a practice we should encourage among these people.

For example, I know I can't afford kids.  That's why I don't have them.  I don't want to burden other people with subsidizing my kids, and more people in my position should do the same.  When people have kids knowing full well that they're going to need other people to pay part of the tab for them, that's pretty selfish of them.  We can't legislate against this practice, because they still have the right to have kids, but we certainly shouldn't reward or praise them for doing it.

It's true though.  If you can't afford kids, don't have them.  This is why I'm both pro-choice and pro-voluntary sterilization.  We should encourage people to breed less, because our immigration rate more than makes up for "native" births.

The only people who should be having kids in this country are the ones who can afford them without government assistance.  For the ones who still have kids under those circumstances, we obviously have to maintain social programs to help them, but breeding is not a practice we should encourage among these people.

For example, I know I can't afford kids.  That's why I don't have them.  I don't want to burden other people with subsidizing my kids, and more people in my position should do the same.  When people have kids knowing full well that they're going to need other people to pay part of the tab for them, that's pretty selfish of them.  We can't legislate against this practice, because they still have the right to have kids, but we certainly shouldn't reward or praise them for doing it.



I agree in that I can't afford to have kids either.  I don't want to be a parent anyway. 

However, where you see a lot of the people having children they cannot afford to raise is where women are disempowered.  This is true here in America and around the world.  Once again, education and economic mobility for women are key to reducing birth rates.

There many circumstances in which a couple started a family and hit hard times.  Sometimes the husband abandons the woman or gets killed or incarcerated. 

We have to be careful about setting social policy based on shoulds.  We are all imperfect and we don't always do as we should.  In spite of what the right-wing wants us to believe, economic privations are neither humane nor effective in motivating people.

And I still consider your opinion mean-spirited.

I agree in that I can't afford to have kids either.  I don't want to be a parent anyway.  

However, where you see a lot of the people having children they cannot afford to raise is where women are disempowered.  This is true here in America and around the world.  Once again, education and economic mobility for women are key to reducing birth rates.

There many circumstances in which a couple started a family and hit hard times.  Sometimes the husband abandons the woman or gets killed or incarcerated.  

No disagreement here.  I'm not saying everyone who has children they can't afford due to losing their job or spouse is irreponsible.  Obviously, there are plenty of cases that are the way you're stating.  They might have been able to afford kids before hard times.  I don't fault people for that.

What I'm talking about is not creating kids while you are poor.  In a modern industrialized society, there's no sense in creating kids when you are poor.  I realize education helps to prevent this, but some common sense is needed too.  It doesn't take that much intelligence to show some restraint.

We have to be careful about setting social policy based on shoulds.  We are all imperfect and we don't always do as we should.  In spite of what the right-wing wants us to believe, economic privations are neither humane nor effective in motivating people.

And I still consider your opinion mean-spirited.


There's nothing exclusively right wing about encouraging people to use common sense.  That's an idea that any person of any political persuasion should be able to appreciate.

I guess one of the places I break ranks with liberals is this sort of topic.  Again, if you can't afford kids and you don't have them already, then don't have them while you are poor.  It's just a stupid idea that mostly results from irresponsible behavior and outdated traditionalism.

I have little sympathy for people who knowingly have kids when they can't afford them.  It's only out of sympathy for the kids themselves that I support these social programs.